I don’t deny that they might be bad writers but they never said that PICARD was a sophisticated simulation, As a matter of fact they said the opposite

Near the end of their conversation Picard asked Data: thought this was a simulation
Data Replied: yes sir But You Are Not

The simulation was the so-called “location” where they were having their conversation

And as it’s been pointed out, There are a number of examples in Star Trek of The essence of life, or “a soul” if that’s how you prefer to call it, Being transferred from person to machine or from one person to the next

And it seems obvious that’s exactly what these writers were trying to do here, As badly as they may have done it it seems that they were trying to do was tell us that what makes up a persons essence can be transferred

No I’m pretty sure this team of writers will eventually contradict themselves In someway by accident but I seriously doubt they’re going to deliberately cause a major contradiction by having Troi notice some big change

After all she was able to read Data and Lal when they were Being emotional

Click to expand...

I don’t recall Troi ever being able to read Data.
As a matter of fact in ‘Tin Man’, the guy who came to read Gomtuu was insanely more sensitive than Troi- to the point of being driven insane- and he couldn’t read Data.

Let's look at how another dictionary defines the term then since this first one still has you confused...

Click to expand...

Im not the one confused here, But sure let’s look at your example

a: not endowed with life or spirit
an inanimate object
b: lacking consciousness or power of motion
an inanimate body

Notice, for the first definition, all it says is no life or spirit.

Click to expand...

Notice how it says Not endowed?

Endowed refers to something given or received or equipped not something that is by nature of mechanics , After all even a human body without a consciousness is as inanimate as a tree......It might be alive but it wouldn’t have life

That definition is speaking of “life” in the Metaphysical run and not the biological, it is not excluding things like trees and plants that are alive but also not endowed with “life” as you and I would call being alive

The problem here is that the definition doesn’t address the definition of life itself......And even if it did , life itself can be defined in many different ways depending on the subject matter.And perhaps that’s where this point of contention comes from, what the concept of biomatter would actually be

Right now, there are a few companies working on 3D printers that might be able to start Making replacement flesh for people using one’s own cells, Maybe one day replacement organs.Most likely the first few steps would be in working on skin and Cartlidge and it’s my understanding that we might be about 5 to 10 years away from being able to 3-D print a skin for people such as burn victims or for grafts.But like I said the technology is envisioned to use a donors own cells

I picture that, in Picards time, any such biomatter would be totally be made of Synthetic materials that a “3D” printer molds into a humanoid body the way a modern 3D printer molds objects out of plastic

From what I recall the simple the Synthoid Tech from GIJoe was described quite similar, If I remember the term they said that they were made from genetic engineering chemicals.I believe terminator T 800 were also describe the same way.

You started this talking about interchanging clay for biomatter as inanimate objects that'd make up a golem's body. This is a misuse of the term, as the clay is a non-living material while "biomatter" is something that is living.

Click to expand...

There is no miss use of the word here, again are used a comparison and said that I feel it is “more literal the metaphorical”

I never intended a word for word translation

In fact, let's look at the definition of an "inanimate object"...

a thing that is not alive, such as a rock, a chair, a book, etc.

That's as straightforward as it gets.

Click to expand...

Nit the best example since it isn’t a complete list

even you admitted the trees and plants fall into this category

Because at first you were talking about replacing an inanimate object (clay) that gets brought to life by magic

Click to expand...

Yeah because it’s a kin to taking a story of myth and bringing it to reality

Remember Trakor's Third Prophecy from DS9? In the end they were no actual vipers

Instead of clay Anton (Probably) used something like “Bio matter”, A completely synthesized, living yet inanimate substance not too different that let’s say a “tree”, to make his golem

Now you're claiming inanimate has the same meaning just because the object doesn't move, when that is not the same thing in this context.

Click to expand...

Sure it is in your own definition support what do you see it or not

We've already gone over how it'd be impossible to clone anything physical from Data.

Click to expand...

No that’s what you claimed, it doesn’t mean you’re right

Hid memories could only be Reconstitute it from a physical neurotic cell, Which is a tangible object, Now you could be right in that they do not have to replicate the same cell to complete the task but I don’t think that was clearly addressed

TNG "Measure of a Man" Captain Louvois: "It sits there looking at me, and I don't know what it is. This case has dealt with metaphysics, with questions best left to saints and philosophers. I am neither competent, nor qualified, to answer those. I've got to make a ruling – to try to speak to the future. Is Data a machine? Yes. Is he the property of Starfleet? No. We've all been dancing around the basic issue: does Data have a soul? I don't know that he has. I don't know that I have! But I have got to give him the freedom to explore that question himself. It is the ruling of this court that Lieutenant Commander Data has the freedom to choose."
Voyager "Author, Author" Arbitrator: "The Doctor exhibits many of the traits we associate with a person. Intelligence, creativity, ambition, even fallibility, but are these traits real or is The Doctor merely programmed to simulate them? To be honest, I don't know. Eventually we will have to decide because the issue of holographic rights isn't going to go away, but at this time, I am not prepared to rule that The Doctor is a person under the law. However, it is obvious he is no ordinary hologram and while I can't say with certainty that he is a person I am willing to extend the legal definition of artist to include The Doctor. I therefore rule that he has the right to control his work and I'm ordering all copies of his holo-novels to be recalled immediately."

Click to expand...

Thanks for the history lesson but like I said before these opinions aren’t really pertinent

however....

Sure, as far as the main cast were concerned, these characters are alive.

Click to expand...

.....the opinions Of the main characters are very pertinent ......And I would say give the clearest answer possible to this issue leaving absolutely no debate

From the creators standpoint, Data was to be taken as completely alive as any of the rest of us since what exactly constitutes “life” can’t really be answered

Edit: And thinking about it...I remember an early episode of Voyager where Janeway pointed out to Kes that the Doctor wasn't actually alive. It wasn't until the Doctor developed much more as an individual that Janeway eventually began to see him as a person. And Dr. Pulaski had much of the same attitude towards Data.

Click to expand...

yeah, kind of feel that was the way they were trying to address the issue from within a small “box” so to speak

"I thought it was pretty great. It was an unbelievably beautifully written scene —Michael Chabon at his finest." Spiner said. "Both Patrick and I were both like, 'This is fantastic,' and we were both really moved by it. It was just wonderfully written, and I think the intent was to soften the blow of Nemesis and give Data a gentler exit than he had in that film."

He continued, "I think there's something really profound about what Michael [Chabon] wrote for Data to say about those things that are fleeting, that mortality is what makes us human, and those things that mean the most to us never last forever."

Actor Brent Spiner says he wouldn't consider playing Data again following the character's last appearance in Season 1 of Star Trek: Picard.

Speaking with TV Guide, Spiner, who has portrayed Lieutenant Data since the first episode of the original run of Star Trek: The Next Generation, claimed he "wouldn't really entertain the idea of doing it again." His concern about continuing to play Data is that "I just don't think it would be realistic." Since Data is an android who cannot age, portraying him would indeed be an issue for any actor over the decades, even with CGI.

Endowed refers to something given or received or equipped not something that is by nature of mechanics , After all even a human body without a consciousness is as inanimate as a tree......It might be alive but it wouldn’t have life

Click to expand...

You are going out of your way to deliberately misconstrue the actual meaning of these definitions...

That definition is speaking of “life” in the Metaphysical run and not the biological, it is not excluding things like trees and plants that are alive but also not endowed with “life” as you and I would call being alive

Click to expand...

If it had been referring to "life" in a metaphysical sense, it would have pointed that out. All the definition is saying is that it's something not alive. It is that simple. Scrolling down the page I got that definition from, it has a "kids definition" which is exactly that... "Not living". That's it. You're over-complicating these definitions to twist their meaning into something they are not, when it really is as simple as something not being alive.

so Anton took The inanimate bio-matter (Clay) and brought it to life by his Technology (magic)

that's using the term Quite literally if you ask me aside from biomatter substituting for clay

Click to expand...

Nit the best example since it isn’t a complete list

even you admitted the trees and plants fall into this category

Click to expand...

Of course it isn't a complete list, I said you should look up examples. This is a definition. It isn't meant to be a "complete list" of everything that'd be considered a inanimate object, just to give you the idea of the meaning.

And no, I've never said that trees and plants are "inanimate objects". I've said they are inanimate, when it is in an entirely different context of the word to mean "lacking consciousness or power of motion" rather than "not alive".

Sure it is in your own definition support what do you see it or not

Click to expand...

Every definition I've pointed out has said "not alive". They don't support what you're saying at all. You've got out of your way to misinterpret or dismiss to support your own meaning.

not alive, especially not in the manner of animals and humans.not endowed with life or spirita thing that is not alive, such as a rock, a chair, a book, etc.not living

No that’s what you claimed, it doesn’t mean you’re right

Click to expand...

No, that's what TNG very clearly established numerous times. Data is purely technological.

Hid memories could only be Reconstitute it from a physical neurotic cell, Which is a tangible object, Now you could be right in that they do not have to replicate the same cell to complete the task but I don’t think that was clearly addressed

Click to expand...

The information would have to be stored on something, but the fact that would be a tangible object is entirely irrelevant. Again, she only mentions reconstituting Data's code and memories. There's no reason to believe they would need to replicate the "positronic neuron", given she never says anything to that effect, again, she only mentions reconstituting Data's code and memories.

Thanks for the history lesson but like I said before these opinions aren’t really pertinent

Click to expand...

In your own opinion. I disagree. It shows that, within the fictional setting, it is still an open ended question.

You are going out of your way to deliberately misconstrue the actual meaning of these definitions...

Click to expand...

Words and terms have more then one definition.....And they’re changing all the time

If it had been referring to "life" in a metaphysical sense, it would have pointed that out.

Click to expand...

i feel it did by making the an effort to single out “not like animals and humans”

Except that's what you'd literally posted:

Click to expand...

didnt you cover this already?

you pointed out this error and I said I may have misspoke and I already Clarified what I was trying to say

Of course it isn't a complete list, I said you should look up examples. This is a definition. It isn't meant to be a "complete list" of everything that'd be considered a inanimate object, just to give you the idea of the meaning.

Click to expand...

And the examples you listed on this leaving because trees and plants are not on that shirt list at all

And no, I've never said that trees and plants are "inanimate objects". I've said they are inanimate, when it is in an entirely different context of the word to mean "lacking consciousness or power of motion" rather than "not alive".

Click to expand...

Which I already said several times it’s pretty much the context in which I am using the word

Every definition I've pointed out has....

Click to expand...

included "not alive" as one of the definitions.....and even that one is open to interpretation

you are just cherry picking the words to support your thinking only

not alive, especially not in the manner of animals and humans.

Obviously referring to a more metaphysical definition of life

not endowed with life or spirit
Again the metaphysical

a thing that is not alive, such as a rock, a chair, a book, etc.

Obviously referring to objects such as yours, but the definition of inanimate also fits things like rocks andobviously referring to objects such as yours, but the definition of inanimate also fits things like plants and trees plants and trees

What I put in bold supports what I’m saying

No, that's what TNG very clearly established numerous times. Data is purely technological.

Click to expand...

And yet they make Mention of “cloning” something about data........you claim it’s only the coding

But even “coding” is technological, So if they can clone coding I see no reason why they cannot clone physical parts of his neural network

The information would have to be stored on something, but the fact that would be a tangible object is entirely irrelevant.

Click to expand...

It can’t be a irrelevant if it was absolutely necessary to have

you believe there no reason to believe they would need to replicate the "positronic neuron", , I’m not so sure

Can we leave it there?

In your own opinion. I disagree. It shows that, within the fictional setting, it is still an open ended question.

Click to expand...

I think it only leaves is as “open ended” to those that just don’t know any better......like the people that have lived with one of these characters....like the crew mates if Data and the Doctor

Words and terms have more then one definition.....And they’re changing all the time.

Click to expand...

Just want to chime in here: This is a terrible standard. When words lose their meaning via constant redefining and re-evolving, a language begins to lose its meaning and communication starts to collapse. I think you know exactly what he meant.

Just want to chime in here: This is a terrible standard. When words lose their meaning via constant redefining and re-evolving, a language begins to lose its meaning and communication starts to collapse. I think you know exactly what he meant.

Click to expand...

Thank you for chiming in

It’s not my standard it just happens to be the way it is.And while I don’t necessarily always like it , it is sometimes fitting

And I don’t think this is an issue of “what he meant”, The word inanimate does have different definitions depending on the subject matter

A book is an inanimate object, And so is a tree
one or those things is living and the other is not......but even the tree does not have “life” as humans and animals do

and in my mind, the possible biomater would be in the same category as a tree would be, but would be artificially created synthetic living materials that are as Inanimate as a tree untill given shape/form and programmed or “Endowed” with “life”

Just want to chime in here: This is a terrible standard. When words lose their meaning via constant redefining and re-evolving, a language begins to lose its meaning and communication starts to collapse. I think you know exactly what he meant.

Click to expand...

Thank you @Wolfguard. And with this, I'm out of this conversation. It's clear to me Primeultra is just going to continue to completely misconstrue and distort everything anyway, which I'm sure he'll respond to this to deny, but there's really no point in continuing when he's just going to argue in circles like that.

I feel you need to take this conversation to PMs because honestly everyone checked out after the first two walls of text... and it is not even relevant to the show at this point what you two are arguing about.

I just gotten to the end of my latest re-watch of TNG, and I have to say after watching All Good Things...
Stewart and Frakes aged far more gracefully in real life than their fictional counterparts did in 25 years.
And I am glad that while they kept that parietal lobe based illness for Picard, it did not turn him into senile grumpy old man who keeps shouting at his friends all the time. Guess being actually old helped Stewart to play old Picard more realistically.

"I thought it was pretty great. It was an unbelievably beautifully written scene —Michael Chabon at his finest." Spiner said. "Both Patrick and I were both like, 'This is fantastic,' and we were both really moved by it. It was just wonderfully written, and I think the intent was to soften the blow of Nemesis and give Data a gentler exit than he had in that film."

He continued, "I think there's something really profound about what Michael [Chabon] wrote for Data to say about those things that are fleeting, that mortality is what makes us human, and those things that mean the most to us never last forever."

Actor Brent Spiner says he wouldn't consider playing Data again following the character's last appearance in Season 1 of Star Trek: Picard.

Speaking with TV Guide, Spiner, who has portrayed Lieutenant Data since the first episode of the original run of Star Trek: The Next Generation, claimed he "wouldn't really entertain the idea of doing it again." His concern about continuing to play Data is that "I just don't think it would be realistic." Since Data is an android who cannot age, portraying him would indeed be an issue for any actor over the decades, even with CGI.

Click to expand...

I think it helped that Brent and Patrick are good friends in real life too. And while many point out Picard was never super friendly with Data in the series, he actually did support him on a lot of occasions where he wanted to explore or expand his study of humanity. He was also the one who first put Data in command of a starship. And of course, things changed drastically in Nemesis. One tends to re-evaluate friendship if your friend sacrifices his life for you.
As for Data, yes, it would be rather pointless to bring him back now and undercut the ending. Data always mused on how he will never understand the full human experience if he remains immortal, this was brought up a few times in the show. In a way, it reminds me of the ending of the Asimov book (and movie) the Bicentennial Man.
However, I would not rule out Spiner returning to play Lore... The man does love to play villains.

Did I miss-hear or did someone say Vulcans and or Romulans were not a Native Species to Vulcan (originally) at one point ?

Also I take it no one is going to actually arrest anyone for all these random Murders the crew likes commiting either ?

Click to expand...

What random murders? Agnes murdered Bruce Maddox, yes. She and others said many, many times in the show that you seems to have conveniently forgotten that she will give herself up after returning to Earth and stand trial. I am pretty sure she will not be a member of the crew in season 2 since, well, she will be in jail.
Seven of Nine (who is not a member of the crew) murdered a known criminal overlord and a Romulan agent who murdered a lot of xBs. She is firstly, a vigilante not affiliated with Starfleet, second, nobody witnessed these murders from the crew, so...
Whenever Elnor murdered someone it was in self defense or to protect someone else. And those people were, again, Zhat Vash agents.
And I cannot remember Rafi, Picard, or Rios murdering anyone.

Except the writers- which are crap and inconsistent BTW- made it a point to say that Picard is dead and that he was a highly sophisticated simulation.
There was no life transferred- only a mathematical approximate.

Click to expand...

There has been several cases where people died and were transferred to android bodies.Juliana SoongThe Schizoid Man (episode)
In Juliana Soong's case not even Crusher noticed despite scanning her that she was an android. Nor did Troi notice.
In neither case did they consider these NOT real people just algorithms.

I give this series credit for trying to move the Star Trek timeline forward, rather than Discovery's attempt to force itself into the past.

Also, choosing to focus on Data's potential to form a race of synthetic beings sounds both fairly reprsentative, both of how things have evolved beyond TNG and of a core point of Star Trek: finding a new race and making connections with them. There are some points I didn't really care for, but on the whole the highs of this show overrule the lows on my side.

But now that this arc is majorly concluded, I hope to see a better, more classic exploration of the universe from Picard's crew. I ideally hope to see Q appear and mess with Picard again. Q was the closest to an archrival Picard had, he deserves to be brought back.

Glad to see Riker is back. I think he can be a great successor to Picard and fix things where his former commanding officer couldn't.

And thankfully Altan Soong had a better sense of morality than he first appeared with.

Data's version of final death, of passing on through his memory sticks being withdrawn from a computer, doesn't really feel final since they could be put back easily and so he could return. But as it is, it stands as a means of closure for a character who wanted to be human. And he'll be reunited with his daughter so that's nice.

Click to expand...

I sadly doubt we will have episodic Trek ever again. That sort of storytelling is dead nowadays except for CSI type shows. Everything is "season-long story" nowadays and it has been even before Netflix.
It'd be fun to have Q back. I guess he would appear as an older man just to "be the same age as Picard", could be explained. I just doubt he stopped appearing to Picard after he spent so much time hassling Janeway.
I think Data was not really fully himself, just as much encoding as they could download from B4 and from that 1 neuron they found. So likely, he could not have been put into an android body anymore. But yeah, it was a nice closure for him, as he often mused about how being immortal prohibits him experiencing all aspects of humanity, including mortality.

Yeah I considered something like that, but Q seem to be even more vain than most humans

Considering that particular aspect of his personality I don’t see him adopting the older human appearance the entire episode

Click to expand...

Q did appear as an old man in All Good Things to mock elderly Picard, using a hearing aid tube.
But if all else fails, they can use makeup and CGI. I think they did it relatively well with Spiner too, even if Data's face looked more puffy than before and his eyes more bulgey.

Most of these reviewers likely only watched 1 episode before writing an article, basing the rest on what they read on wikipedia and seen on youtube reviews. Because to me this was nowhere as dark as people clamored it would be. Into Darkness, now that WAS a dark reboot of Trek. Even turned the Federation into SW's Empire and gave them their grey uniforms...

There has been several cases where people died and were transferred to android bodies.Juliana SoongThe Schizoid Man (episode)
In Juliana Soong's case not even Crusher noticed despite scanning her that she was an android. Nor did Troi notice.
In neither case did they consider these NOT real people just algorithms.

Click to expand...

In looking back at this show several years later I myself have determined that it wasn't as good as I thought it was back in the day.
Part of the problem in transferring a conscience after death is... in death there is no conscience. That's what death is.

It's like the magic blood from Star Trek: Into Darkness. Dead is dead... and if it wasn't then it ain't dead. You can inject magic blood into a corpse, but do to the nature of being a corpse- like the lack of circulatory system and all- nothing will happen.

So do we really want to look back and say "They did stupid thing back in the day, so therefore this isn't stupid."?

So yeah: I'll say they were just algorithms / simulations.

Now, if they did a transfer before death- like Spock- that would be something different.

One has to be kinda generous to consider the reborn picard to actually be Picard.

If say it was possible to copy someone's mind (like Data's was copied into B4) then if such a copy was made and stored and the oriiginal dies, then that earlier copy was transposed into an aged up clone body - it would be a cloned recration more than the same person, I mean it would act like it's the same person, but it's sort of like a photocopy of the original document (so to speak).

I guess the usual arbitor of such things is Dogs. If Number One still sees him as Picard, that is likely "Good enough".

So what do they do with Picard’s body?
Proper burial?
Attend your own funeral?

Click to expand...

I'm guessing buried at that syth' s village somewhere. And yeah, I imagine Picard did attend a small service beforehand. Seriously though, I wonder if it's going to be a big secret that he has a syth body now, or will he make it public knowledge to help mend Syth/Federation relations (they said the ban was lifted, but I figure there's still some resentment and prejudice left, even in the face of evidence of the Romulan plot).